Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Confirms Elena Kagan's Appointment To SCOTUS

Posted by Soulskill on from the release-the-kagan dept.

eldavojohn writes "As expected, by a vote of 63 to 37 Elena Kagan has been appointed as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan, only 50 years old, has no judicial experience. The Washington Post explains: 'Other justices have corporate law backgrounds or a long record of arguing before the court. Kagan worked briefly for a law firm and argued her first case before an appellate court 11 months ago. It happened to be before the Supreme Court, the first of six cases she argued as the nation's first female solicitor general.' Her fair use views and free speech views have made her a focus of Slashdot recently."

19 of 618 comments (clear)

  1. Lack of judicial experience used to be common by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's only recently that it became a major concern, largely because they use it as a proxy for competence to try and fend off ideological attacks. According to Media Matters, out of 111 Supreme Court Justices, 40 of them had no prior judicial experience. Hell, Rehnquist and Warren (relatively recent Chief Justices) had no prior judicial experience, and Rehnquist only died a couple years back. Personally, I'd be happy with a few more non-judges (ideally a couple non-lawyers) on the Court (not a majority, but two or three), just to provide a touch of humanity. Sometimes, the law isn't clear, and the Constitution almost never is, and having people who are inclined to sympathize with people rather than arcane precedents is a good thing. Yeah, it's not calling balls and strikes, but then, if you really believe any Supreme Court Justice is able to do that, you're delusional.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    1. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by sideslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I'd be happy with a few more non-judges (ideally a couple non-lawyers) on the Court (not a majority, but two or three), just to provide a touch of humanity.

      I agree that a human touch is good (cf. Dred Scott), but I disagree about having non-lawyers on the court. I think we can all appreciate a decision maker who knows the rules, and knows when to break them. But putting someone in there who doesn't even know the rules is going to be more harmful than helpful. To put it another way, it's the responsibility of the elected legislature to come up with laws. The court should show wisdom in striking down laws that violate our Constitution (our core national values). But if we have a court that makes stuff up as it goes along, then we have ironically sacrificed the democratic element of our government for a pure tyranny of (unelected) judges.

    2. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by sexconker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is so unclear about the constitution?

      The degree to which we'll (continue to) allow the government to shit on it?

    3. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.

      Yes, some of it was deliberately vague, but the majority of the time its very specific. For example, how the hell do you take the ninth amendment along with the fourteenth and suddenly create another right, the right to an abortion? If you read both of those amendments, the same logic used to create a right to an abortion can be used to overrule just about every single state law.

      The problem is, people take the specific parts of the constitution and try to force them into some ideological form and create things with constitutional authority without making amendments to them.

      You can't create rights out of nothing, you can't in essence "amend" the constitution from the bench without passing an amendment, but this is exactly what the Supreme Court consistently does.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right...

      The constitution is deliberately ambiguous on a number of extremely important points, because like all other political things the constitutional congress passed the buck on the hard issues of the day.

      Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.

      Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?
      Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?
      Can a state secede from the union? (I think this was a pretty big deal a while ago)

      Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"
      On which side of the cruel and unusual line does prison overcrowding fall?
      Does full faith and credit mean that Utah has to recognize gay couples married in California?

    5. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is so unclear about the constitution?

      How it applies to problems that the founders never even could have imagined. For example, their concept of privacy is largely physical, where "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to physical property in your home. How does that Right apply on the Internet, for example? Would you like to post some of the "lots of books" they wrote on this issue? What are their views on human cloning? Stem cell research? Hell, organ transplantation and test tube babies? What did they think about black people and women voting in elections?

      The founding fathers are to be highly respected for their achievements, and they are to be complimented for being ahead of their time, but there's a limit to what even the most brilliant humans can foresee. Don't forget also that they produced the Constitution inevitably as a political compromise of their day, not an idealized document.

    6. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.

      They are both rather broad powers that gives Congress a central power to pass laws in accordance to the constitution. It basically does as it says, lets Congress regulate trade and let congress pass laws needed at the time in accordance to the constitution.

      Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?

      An individual right, as shown in various quotes from people who lead our country in the 1700s.

      "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

      Thomas Jefferson, note man, singular.

      And there are a lot more from almost every person there. None of them said anything to deny each (free) person the right to bear arms.

      Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?

      The Constitution provides several limits on the government's power collectively they form a right to privacy. There is no listed "right" of anonymity, but when the rest of the constitution is preserved, the ability to be anonymous is also preserved.

      Can a state secede from the union? (I think this was a pretty big deal a while ago)

      Do they have the constitutional authority to do so? I think so. Do they have a practical right to do it, not after the civil war.

      Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"

      Someone born in the US or to people of US decent.

      On which side of the cruel and unusual line does prison overcrowding fall?

      Now that is something the supreme court actually should interpret because that is one of the few passes intentionally left vague for interpretation throughout history.

      Does full faith and credit mean that Utah has to recognize gay couples married in California?

      I think when it comes to the marriage issue we have to step back and really wonder why the hell the state is defining our relationships in the first place. And then determine that question later :P

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny example my US History teacher loved to give: The Constitution gave the Government the power to maintain and Army and a Navy. The Constitution made no mention of an Air Force...

      The US Constitution is pretty well regarded as being remarkably well thought out. Personally I admire its brevity and simplicity. Its genius is that it was written with the understanding that it could not provide solutions or guidelines for all issues that might arise in the future, but instead set up a system of Government that was capable of adapting itself. The Government it established has run uninterrupted for over 300 years. How many other forms of Government have lasted that long without being overthrown? (Some, but not many).

  2. Re:eh by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many companies did Dubya manage into the ground? How did his super-duper governing skillz help him in his 8 years?

    Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers (the team, not the police force). Got the city to build a new stadium, and massively increased attandance and profits. He also did OK as governer of Texas (though arguable the Lt. Gove has more power there), and often compromised to get things done. I was really surprised by how he behaved as president.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. What a bs writeup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Slant the news much, do we?

    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/10/kagan-has-appropriate-experience-for-a-seat-on-the-supreme-court.html

    40 SC justices had no prior judicial experience. Why don't you at least be honest on your writeup and explain why you REALLY don't like her instead of some made up proxy bs.

  4. Oh that's an easy one by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Karma to burn, karma to burn. Anyway that's easy, because neither the Pubs nor the Dems actually believe in free speech. They believe in Ford Speech, IE the right to say whatever you want as long as they agree with you. (For those that care I call it that because it's just like the saying about what color model-T you can get.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  5. Re:eh by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The great problem is attribution. Here you attribute the varied Democratice voting records to the monolithic voting records to Party Loyalty vs fear of loss of seat, as if those are the only explanations or reasons.

    I would counter that the Republican party is more Demogogic and Authoritative and they see that if they stick together and vote together they will keep their seats, and also service their financiers and feather their nests politically and privately with that behavior.

    On the other hand the Democrats are more of the people and listen to the diveristy of their constituent and try to serve the people that elected them (not the ones that paid to have them elected) (yes, yes there are some counter examples, but I posit that that is the exception and not the rule). That would explain the less than monolithic voting record of the Democrats. They are not doing things out of fear but listening to and reponding to their constituents, which I claim is what the process should be like, not this opposing everything, even health care for 911 responders.

    Speaking of which, what if a 911 responder was an illegal allien. Don't we owe him a deep gratitude and at least health care for the sacrifice he/she made for us at ground Zero. What is this Republican bullshit where they block a vote because they don't want any illegal allien to get health coverage, even if they were a 911 responder.

    I don't think the punishment fits the crime here, and exposes some deep seeded and ugly views held by the Republicans.

  6. Re:eh by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's crazy talk, but how about the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which made Senators directly elected by the people (and hence, prone to the partisanship winds of the day) rather than being representatives of the states (hence the term Statesmen)? These days, the Senate tends to be just as petty and partisan as the House, if not even moreso, and it's all because the Senators have to play up their act to get re-elected rather than being able to vote their conscience.

    As an added bonus, it might just slow down the federal government's powergrab from the states (see things like speed limits or drinking age) since, you know, someone would actually be representing the states in the united STATES government.

    --
    Stop Koolaid Politics
  7. Re:lulz by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
    That's exactly why it's a trick question, because the first thing that pops into people's minds is different than a legal interpretation with some actual well-defined meaning. "Do you believe in freedom?" "Of course!" "Should I have the freedom to walk into your home and take whatever I want?" "No! That's not freedom!" (i.e. 'I don't like it therefore it's obviously something else.')

    I guess a better way for her to answer the question would have been to say, "well, I don't think the govt. can mandate that everyone eat three vegetables and three fruits a day, if that's what you mean."

  8. Re:eh by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good campaign speech. Bit low on facts, but hey I've learned to live with that long ago.

    But what do you have to say about the fact that Elena Kagan was clearly in favor of banning books ? Furthermore she cooperated in a case that actually wanted to ban a book. "Somehow" that, the whole point in this thread, is missing in your point. Perhaps the book was astroturfing, yes, fully agreed. Perhaps there was money behind it, again, yes.

    She's made it clear, on many occasions, that she intends to repeat her attempts to ban books with certain viewpoints.

    I guess democrats, at the very least you, and ms. Kagan, just feel that the plebs cannot be trusted to form opinions, and should not be allowed to do so except under your -so graciously offered- guidance. The fact that people like you defend this by saying it somehow safeguards democracy is beyond ludicrous. But hey Hitler justified his nomination as dictator for life by that very same reason, as did Chavez, Kim Jong Il and Mugabe and I guess you've not quite sunk that low.

    What's next ? Bread and Games ?

    And quite frankly, we all know what happened if Bush would have whispered something to his friends about "not really" liking a book. Why the obvious double standard ? Isn't judging people differently because of ideological differences racist ? Are you a racist ?

    If not, why such obvious ideological bias and ad-hominem attacks ?

  9. Re:eh by mpfife · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would have voted against anyone that proposed the health care extortion^B plan we had shoved down our throats. Neither the dems or the reps are really fiscally responsible anymore.

    We have a medicare/medicade program that is slated to go bankrupt by 2020, and a social security system slated for insolvency around 2030. How in the world do we expect ANOTHER huge spending plan on healthcare to work?

    But don't take my word for it - here it is straight from wikipedia: "According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019" Citations on the site

    Nobody on either side of the isle has the b*lls to stand up to the coming government services collapse that'll be happening in our lifetimes. Welcome to the housing bubble come to the government bubble.

  10. Re:lulz by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, I got the impression that the question Coburn was driving at was the legality of the Government issuing individual mandates to every citizen (replace "eat your vegetables" with "buy health insurance"). I wish the question had been more simply phrased so we could have heard her response. Once cases relating to the mandated health insurance finally reach the Supreme Court, her opinion on that will definitely matter.

  11. Re:eh by gambino21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you have references that these constituents "overwhelmingly favor its repeal"? I've heard this before on Fox news but have not seen any reliable statistics to back it up. On the other hand I did hear last year from several places that the majority of people favoured a public option. However, the health insurance companies obviously didn't want this and therefore many in Washington made sure it didn't happen.

    The reason I bring this up is because a lot of people didn't like the bill in the beginning because it didn't include medicare expansion or a public option. But I believe many of those people would still not want it repealed.

  12. Re:lulz by TopherC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay I hadn't considered cases like gay marriage since I was thinking too much about the big picture. But I don't think this is a trend or a taste of what's to come, since in general human rights abuses in the US have been on the decline over the past century or more. And I don't see how Kagan's recognition that individual ideologies influence law (law is based on ideology anyway) will create more abuses of human rights than protection of them.

    I think a good supreme court should be rife with activism. I mean, it should be composed of diverse intellectuals who actively debate the issues at hand in order to find common ground.

    I'm not saying that she's the second coming of Christ! But I haven't yet seen any major red flags or accusations in the press that aren't just emotionally overcharged propaganda stunts.